Re: 9i install quit right after setting installation types

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:53:18 +0100, Konstantinos M wrote:

>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.02.28.09.37.50.433537_at_yahoo.com.au...
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:51:19 +0000, Konstantinos M wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I went through many posts here and elsewhere but didn't find a
>> > solution to my problem so I could definitely use some help.
>> > I am installing 9i on a P4 Win 2K machine which has already 8.1.7 to a
>> > different oracle_home. I am having a problem because OUI quits right
>> > after I pick the installation type (enterprise, standard, whatever),
>> > and the installaction.log mentions no error but its last entry is
>> > about prerequisite queries. I don't think it's the P4 bug, metalink
>> > says this problem was fixed with 9i but just to make sure I am
>> > installing from HD after renaming the symsomething.dll but still have
>> > the problem. Does anybody have any ideas what could be wrong ? I am
>> > starting to get kinda desperate.
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance
>> > Kostas
>>
>>
>> I wish we could clear this nonsense up once and for all. Oracle 8i (that's
>> EIGHT EYE) was released before the Pentium 4 processor, and hence the
>> Pentium 4 bug. Oracle 9i was released after the Pentium 4 processor had
>> been around for a long time, and hence THERE IS NO PENTIUM 4 BUG IN 9I.
>>
>> There are zero problems installing 9i on a Windows machine that is
>> *clean*.
>>
>> And that's all the advice I can give you.
>>
>> Sorry
>> HJR
>
> Howard, I think you need a vacation.

Whatever. Personally, I find it ridiculous in the extreme that anyone who had done the least bit of research as to the nature of the P4 bug would even propose it as an excuse for their problems in 9i. You're not alone in jumping to totally illogical conclusions, either. It's become something of a mantra here '9i install won't work...must be the P4 bug'.

> Anyway, since we both agree it's not the P4 bug (stupid me tried everything
> cause I was desperate), and apart from yelling, do you have a solution ? If
> not, your advice besides wrong (*) is completely useless and your answer
> irritating.

Not as irritating, I venture, as not telling us minor details like your service pack level or the amount of RAM you have. Nor as irritating as people latching onto some non-existent bug as if it absolves them of the need to think.

>It's like saying to a guy with a half loaded truck and loading
> problems that they would not have problems loading an empty one. Um ok,
> yeah, thanks I guess.

OK: Put it this way then: I've installed 9iR1 and 9iR2 onto W2K and XP machines probably over 100 times, and I've never had an issue doing it. Your machine has got 8i on it already. I've also done plenty of those sorts of install... but I start with a fresh Windows install, install 8i, install 9i. No problems.

Yet you are having problems. So either you don't know how to install Windows properly. Or your 8i installation is not fresh. Or there's something else on that box that's stuffing up the 9i install. (Such as, for example, an installation of Java somewhere).

In each case, starting with a clean machine gives you an opportunity to sort the kak out.

> I take the chance to mention here that older (2002) threads in Metalink with
> the exact same problem are unfortunately still open.
>
> (*) At home I had a clean w2k machine with NOTHING on, where I tried to
> install 9i. The installer told me at the beginning that it cannot be
> installed without service pack 1

So what you're telling me is that you don't read the installation documentation, because otherwise this requirement would not have been a surprise. That might explain a lot.

>(which I hadn't installed) and after I
> installed the latter smoothly OUI aborted at 30something% saying that the
> SP1 was not installed. So much for the "zero problems installing 9i on a
> Windows machine that is*clean*"

And in over 100 installs, I've never had such a problem. So you explain how come I can get it right and you can't?

Of course, I've never tried installing in anything less than 192MB of RAM. I know how to configure Windows. I don't apply Service Pack 3 until after Oracle is safely installed. And I don't stint on swapfile space.

So, as for my advice being wrong... maybe. But at least I'm running 9i on W2K on a Pentium 4, and you're not. Go figure.

HJR Received on Fri Feb 28 2003 - 11:27:43 CST